Seurata @ Lockdownlive Twitterissä.


tarkemmat tiedot

  • Hallitus nimi: Eric Van Buren
  • Rekisterinumero: 11044-068
  • Ikä:42
  • Aika Toiminut:14 vuotta
  • Kotikaupunki:Washington D.C.
  • Lause:LIFE
  • Nykyinen Charge:Drug Conspiracy
  • Alias:Big Erk, Freckle Face, Beezer
  • Vuosi:Clemency Candidate
  • Prison yhteistyökumppanit:Another Chance 4 Legal (AC4L)
  • Circle of Influence:Marcus Martin, Another Chance 4 Legal
  • Laitos:USP Canaan
  • There is no honor in coming to prison. It does NOT make you a man.

How to Deal with Medical Issues in Prison


Monet ihmiset kysyvät Toinen Mahdollisesti 4 Oikeudellinen ja The Art of Winning Litigation perustan ohjausta heidän tai rakkaan lääketieteellisiä kysymyksiä vankilassa. What this blogpost will do is breakdown a proven successful method to properly exhaust and forward your medical claim(s) tuomioistuimessa. This is NOT a treatise on how to file a Prison Litigation Reform Act or Federal Tort Claim Act Claim. Nähdä Roma v. Yhdysvallat, 344 F.3d 352, 362 (3d Cir. 2003).

Kuten ehkä tai ehkä tiedä, prisoners are 2,000-times more likely NOT to receive proper and appropriate medical attention while incarcerated. The Prison Legal News has horror story upon horror story proving that medical negligence in prison is routine. Women prisoners suffer the worst. Lääketieteellisiä kysymyksiä vankilassa on kysymys aiomme käsitellä 2016 ja eteenpäin.

STEP 1: Determine Viability of Claim

The best chance for a WINNING claim is one that involves irreparable injury. Irreparable injury is an injury that can not be repaired or that involves continued treatment. The 8th Amendment obligates prison officials to provide adequate medical care. Nähdä Estelle v. Gamble, 429 US-. 92, 103 (1976). [Mental health and Dental care are governed that same as medical care]. Nähdä Tilley v. Owens, 719 F.Supp. 1256 , 1286 (W.D.PA. 1989); Hoptowit v. Säde, 682 F.2d 1237, 1253 (9th Cir. 1982)

Hyvä esimerkki korjaamatonta vahinkoa on Wakefield v. Yhdysvallat, 2014 US-. Dist. LEXIS 171800 (määr. FLA. Lokakuu 16, 2014). This person who was disfigured in prison was a client of The Art of Winning Litigation Foundation. käyttäen The Art of Winning Litigation, we invoked a settlement in this case. A good test to determine the viability of a claim is to ask, on vahinko korjaamaton tai se voi korjata itse ilman lääketieteellistä hoitoa? If an injury is not irreparable an does not need medical intervention, olisimme arvella tämä ei ole toteuttamiskelpoinen vaatimus.

STEP 2: Prove a “tahallinen Välinpitämättömyys” tapahtunut

(a) Deliberate indifference is a harder standard to prove than mere negligence. Sillä ei ole merkitystä, että vankila hoitohenkilökunta oli huolimattomasti. What matters is that their negligence was the reason for injury AND that it is reasonable to believe a prison medical official should have known, ennen vahingon, that said injury was possible due to their neglect.

What is legally required is an excessive risk of harm to a prisoner. Nähdä Farmer v. Brennan, 511 US-. 825, 836 (1994). Vankilassa tahallinen välinpitämättömyys on rutiini. Monissa vankiloissa jokaisen vangin lääketieteellinen narista on tarkasteltu epäuskoisesti. This bias creates a culture. Tämä kulttuuri on kiihkoilijat. Myös, vankilassa, vindictive behavior between prison staff and prisoners is common. These factors are hard to demonstrate legally. When it is a prisoner’s word against a staff member . . . hyvin voit selvittämisestä.

(b) This may sound obvious, but to prove a prison medical claim, one must show an injury occurred. This can done by using circumstantial evidence such as: 1) the inability to perform a specific duty upon release 2) the inability to hold or get a job 3) secondary injuries sustained due to the primary injury. Lisäksi, suoraa näyttöä on suuri, things such as: 1) Sick soittopyyntö 2) medical records (Tiedän, se on helpommin sanottu kuin tehty) 3) valitukset (Muista käyttää kaikki hallinnolliset korjaustoimenpiteitä) 4) treatment or the lack thereof or the inadequacy of treatment. I know submitting or requesting direct evidence often comes with a price so prisoners have to discern if filing is worth all that comes with it.

(c) Muista 8. Tarkistus kielletään “tarpeeton ja mieletön kivun tuottamisen”. Vakava lääketieteellinen tarve on: 1) Something a doctor would perceive as an important or worthy need, niin paljon, että se voisi kommentoida tai tarjota hoitoa; 2) a medical condition that affects daily activity or will at sometime; 3) chronic and substantial pain is so obvious even a lay person would easily recognize the necessity of medical attention. Katso Adams v. POAG, 61 F.3d 1537, 1543-44 (11th Cir. 1995).

Naiset pitää mielessä, että myöhäisessä vaiheessa raskautta, erityisesti kolmannen raskauskolmanneksen, constitutes a serious medical need. Nähdä Doe v. Gustavus, 294 F. supp. 2d 1003, 1008 (E.D. WIS. 2003).

(d) Vihdoin, vankilan viranomaiset osoittavat tahallinen välinpitämättömyys kun he kieltävät sinua tekemästä sairaudestasi tiedossa hoitohenkilökunta tai jos henkilökunta on epäpätevä
tutkia, määrittää, hoitoon ja viittaavat sairaus. Nähdä Hoptowit v. Säde, 682 F.2d 1237, 1252-53 (9th Cir. 1982).

STEP 3: Oikein käytettävä kaikki keinot

Hyödyllistä linkki vankilaan vankilaan epäkohta politiikkaa.

(a) Tämä on hankala. PLRA (Prison Litigation Reform Act) asettaa rajoituksia ja vaatimuksia vankien. The PLRA tells you how to file a 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 väite. There is a BIVENS claim to bring against an official acting outside their official duty. A good example is the BIVENS case itself where policeman ran up in a house without probable cause or a search warrant. Nähdä Bivens, 403 US-. 388 (1971). Sitten on FTCA (Liittovaltion Tort Vaatimuksen Act) väittävät jossa Yhdysvallat on ainoa vastaaja. Nähdä CNA v. Yhdysvallat, 535 F.3d 132 (3d Cir. 2008).

(b) Jokainen vanki vaativat korvausta tai kieltomääräystä ehtojen perusteella niiden synnytyksen voi tuoda puvun alla 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. § 1983 a prisoner can seek monetary relief, lukien nimellinen, compensatory and punitive damages. Nähdä Memphis Comm. Sch. Dist. sisään. Stachura, 477 US-. 299, 308 (1986).

(c) Prisoners having trouble exhausting a claim due to “asioita pidemmälle [niiden] hallita” should look at these cases. Jones v. Brock, 548 US-. 199, 216 (2007) ja Dole v. kynttiläkauppias, 483 F.3d 804, 809 (7th Cir. 2006). These cases offer instances when a prison official interferes with the exhaustion process, or if a claim is asked to be dismissed for failure to exhaust when an attempt to was made.

(d) Fyysinen vahinko on osoitettava vallitsevat korvaavien vaatimuksen vahingonkorvauksen. Nähdä Davis v. D.C., 158 F.3d 1342, 1349 (D.C. Cir. 1998) ja Mitchell v. Sarvi, 318 F.3d 523, 533-36 (3d Cir. 2003). Also remember a prisoner’s constitutional rights are de minimis. Esimerkiksi: A free citizen MUST be given notice BEFORE their property is seized. In prison this is not required and in certain circumstances you have a right to be given notice AFTER your property has been seized. So keep this is mind when filing BIVENS actions.

(ja) NOTICE to all prisoners: FTCA forms for injury or loss are being given out in substitute for BP-8 request. Know the difference. Per Mars v. Hanberry, 752 F.2d 254, 255 (6th Cir. 1985), once you bring a TORT claim for monetary compensation on this form you are “locked in” to the decision of the Agency. If the Agency does not want to give you a monetary settlement then you can not, suurimmaksi osaksi, appeal this decision to the court. We believe this is a trick because claims of injury or loss that do not have an officer’s acquiescence or a group of prisoners to back it usually lose. Not in all cases but in most cases.

We even know of cases when once a prisoner starts the BP-8 process, then files a FTCA claim (per this form), the administration automatically rips up or denies the
prisoners claims under the PLRA. Viime aikoina vankeja on vaadittu tiedostoon käyttäen FTCA lomakkeen. Älä huijata. File BP-8 go, läpi prosessin, sitten
tiedoston sinun FTCA väite tarvittaessa JÄLKEEN olet oikeudessa.

STEP 4: Aikarajat

Tiedä rajat. The duration of the statute of limitations applied by federal courts depends on the structure of the state’s statute of limitations in which the claim arose. Nähdä Wallace v. kato, 549 US-. 384, 387 (2007). If there is a persisting medical condition, one can bring suit anytime during the existence of this condition. FTCA claims must be filed within two years from when the claim arose and 42 USC Section 1983 claims limitations are guided by the state. (See Above).

STEP 5: How To File

(a) Note that we always file claims using what the The Art of Winning Litigation calls fact-based-litigation. We suggest filing the initial BP-8 (Grievance Claim) using a numerical and chronological approach.

For Example:

1. Elokuun 2014, I did not have TB (See Exh. 1)
2. On September 2014, I was placed in the cell with someone who had TB (See Exh. 2)
3. On or about September 2014 to December 2014, I complained to prison officials about being celled w/someone who had TB. (See Affidavit)
4. Tammikuun 2015, I was moved to a different cell. (See Exh. 3)
5. Maaliskuun 2015, I was diagnosed with latent TB (See Exh. 4)
6. Toukokuun 2015, I began taking medication for latent TB (See Exh. 4)
7. On October 2015, I was diagnosed with liver failure due to the medication I was taking for latent TB. (See Exh. 5)
8. Marraskuun 2015, I became ill with severe pain in my lower back & stomach.
9. Per, BOP Policy 12345.678 & C.F.R 1999, No inmate can be housed with any other inmate diagnosed with TB. See Prisoner v. Yhdysvallat 123 F.3d 456 (13th Cir. 2014).
10. I am asking for punitive and compensatory damages in the amount of $500,000.00 dollars each, due to negligence and pain and suffering.

(b) Do NOT deviate when filing an INITIAL BP-8. Be accurate, brief and clear. DO NOT blame or make accusations. Just state your claim. Litigating angry is one
of the worse ways to litigate. Do not do this, especially when someone has been wronged.

STEP 6: Filing in Court

(a) Once all potential remedies to a claim have been exhausted, it can now brought to court. A federal prisoner housed in a federal prison files to the U.S. District Court where the claim arose.

(b) Do not deviate from the claim made in the Administrative Remedy Process. It must be the same claim, written the same way. This is to ensure credibility. The court will usually assign a Magistrate Judge to oversee initial claims. This judge will make a recommendation to the Article III Judge. The judge will state whether the claim is viable, meritorious or frivolous under the color of law.

(c) Varo, there will be more than one round of summary dismissal action. Nähdä Alba v. Montford, 517 F.3d 1249, 1254-55 (11th Cir. 2008); Abbas v. Dixon, 480 F.3d 636, 639-40 (2d. Cir. 2007). Summary dismissal is when the defendant asks that your claim be dismissed because it has no merit. This is why it is important not to waiver or try to sneak in different claims after your initial filing. This usually results in claims being dismissed. Nähdä Miller v. Donald, 541 F.3d 1091, 1100-01 (11th Cir. 2008).

PLEASE BEWARE what I have given you is merely an outline of how to properly exhaust your medical claim and bring it into court for the FIRST round of summary motions. If you know someone on prison, we suggest you print this out and send it to them.

“Terveys on yhtä tärkeää kuin vapaus . . . Vankilassa olet taistelussa elämäsi”.

Eric Van Buren
Elävät muoto Lockdown

Post-Conviction strategi
Co-perustaja TAWL Foundation
Teoksen The Art of Winning Litigation
Konsultti purra of LAW
Konsultti toiseen Chance 4 Legal


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Read this book!

Valitse kieli

Muokkaa Käännös

Nopea laukaisu